National Security: Halt 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Discharges, Key Dem Says
• "Congress could pass a limited moratorium on the military's 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy this spring, a key chairwoman said Monday," The Hill reports. "Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee, said that she hopes to include a measure prohibiting discharges for gay and lesbian members of the armed forces who are outed by colleagues."
• "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told French officials Monday that he was concerned about their plans to sell Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia, although there is little if anything the United States could do to block the deal, officials said," the New York Times reports.
• "The airline industry is casting a wary eye on efforts to beef up U.S. aviation security in the wake of the failed Christmas bombing attempt, fearful that Congress and the Obama administration will push through a fee increase on carriers to pay for security programs," CongressDailyAM (subscription) reports.
You've all heard the arguments for and against. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen are now for dropping "don't ask, don't tell" and allowing openly gay troops to wear the uniform. So is President Obama. So is Colin Powell, who as head of the Joint Chiefs in 1993 helped torpedo the idea at great political cost to the young Clinton administration.
Mullen said it was partly a question of honor, and he questioned a policy that forces members of the armed services to lie about who they are or be forced out. The counterargument from some Republicans, veterans groups and others is that it's a "social experiment" that could harm readiness, unit cohesion and even esprit de corps -- especially now, in the middle of two wars.
Which is it? Should we lift the gay ban or not? And have society and members of the military changed so much in 17 years that we won't repeat the previous impasse in Congress, which led to a compromise that satisfied no one?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Larry Korb, Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Gordon Adams, Michael F. Scheuer, Wayne White, Gordon Adams, Kori Schake
President Obama is in a rough political patch with the apparent demise of his top domestic priority, universal health care; with the loss of a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate; with improved Republican prospects for the midterm elections in November; and with his once sky-high approval rating now below 50 percent.
So, what does his weakened position mean for his handling of foreign affairs and for the tack that allies, rivals and outright enemies take toward the U.S.? With his focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs," Obama devoted a grand total of nine minutes to national security issues in his State of the Union address. Does this suggest less activism on the foreign policy front? If so, Obama would be going against the historical pattern, which suggests that a president weakened on the domestic front is likely to become more energetic in foreign affairs as the realm that is less subject to congressional and political control at home (Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon are examples).
In any case, what is the best course for Obama at this juncture? Should he try to improve his standing at home with a prestige-enhancing triumph abroad? Are there such opportunities out there -- for example, a bold deal with the Russians on nuclear disarmament, a tough package of sanctions against Iran, a breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Are the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, the Indians, the Japanese, the Europeans, likelier to be tougher or more accommodating with Obama facing troubles at home? (Or to put it another way: Do any of them want to see Obama fail?) Is a weakened Obama in danger of being seen as another Jimmy Carter -- that is, as an ineffectual president not likely to serve another term? (The analyst Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations is already likening Obama to Carter.) Is his damaged domestic position likely to matter in any way to Al Qaeda and other anti-U.S. Islamic militant groups?
Any and all speculations on this theme are welcome.
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Michael F. Scheuer, James Mann, Paul Starobin, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Vlahos, Christopher Preble, Paul Sullivan, Paul Starobin, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner
In the wake of Google's threat to pull out of China over allegations that Chinese hackers penetrated the company's computer systems and stole intellectual property, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech last week extolling the five freedoms of the Internet age, what should U.S. government policy be on Internet freedom abroad?
Some senators, Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter for example, say the U.S. government should directly back censorship-busting technologies and policies. Critics say this will backfire by allowing regimes such as China and particularly Iran to say, "Look how Washington is trying to interfere in our countries again." How hard should the U.S. government push for unfettered access to the Internet in foreign countries, particularly the closed ones? And what should the Obama administration's role be in this dispute between China and Google? What other tools can the U.S. use to push worldwide Internet freedom?
To inform the discussion, here's a little background on the Google China dispute:
• Reports indicate that the Chinese hackers might have penetrated a system that Google uses to conduct lawful e-mail surveillance of foreign spies and terrorists on behalf of the U.S. government. If true, the Chinese hackers could know whom the U.S. government is ordering Google to monitor, and how the company goes about filtering those communications.• Google has protested the Chinese government's censorship of Web searches and has threatened to stop censoring them within China. The State Department has used Google's public threats of a pull out to urge all technology companies to stand up to China. Last week, Secretary of State Clinton urged U.S. companies "to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance.... They need to consider what's right, not simply what's a quick profit."
• The dispute has Chinese senior officials doing damage control. Hoping to keep the row with Google from harming bilateral agreements with the United States, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei cautioned last week, "The Google case should not be linked with relations between the two governments and countries; otherwise, it's an over-interpretation."
• Google's announcement that it had been hacked amounts to an unprecedented admission for a major U.S. company. Clearly, the Obama administration was aware of Google's decision before it was announced, and the State Department has used it to tweak China and other oppressive regimes. Secretary Clinton seemed to be calling upon U.S. corporations to play a role traditionally reserved for governments -- confronting restrictive regimes over how they police their own societies and how they steal secrets from other governments.
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
Four years after Katrina became the most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history, and the government's response the standard for ineptitude, the earthquake in Haiti has once again focused the American public and the world on the U.S. government's ability to respond to a major and unexpected catastrophe. The question looming over the U.S.-led rescue and relief effort is whether the hard lessons of Katrina and other recent disasters have been learned and adequately incorporated into the response of the Obama administration to what may prove the worst disaster in the Western Hemisphere in living memory.
Though the relief operation is still in its infancy, I would like our expert bloggers to share their insights and thoughts about the response thus far. Given Haiti's extreme poverty, its lack of adequate infrastructure, and the severity of the earthquake, how does this crisis rate on the spectrum of disasters in terms of the challenges it presents? Given the imperative to reach victims within the "golden" 72 hours after such a catastrophic event, has the Obama administration shown the requisite urgency and responded fast enough? By naming USAID administrator Rajiv Shah to oversee the response, and assigning Southern Command deputy Gen. P.K. Keen to head a joint task force and coordinate the response, has the Obama administration heeded the need for a single point person and clear chain of command that seemed lacking in the early days of the Katrina response?
Do you sense that the lack of adequate communications to coordinate relief efforts during Katrina has been addressed in this instance? Has the administration done a good or poor job in coordinating with local (Haitian) and international authorities in managing the crisis? Have enough of the right supplies, equipment and personnel been sent based on a coherent prioritization? What, if any, additional capabilities does the United States need in order to better respond to such disasters, natural as well as manmade? Finally, Obama told Congress in recent days that "this is a time when the world looks to us." What do you believe the world's ultimate judgment will be on Obama's leadership and America's response in this crisis?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Brian Michael Jenkins, Michael Vlahos, Paul Sullivan, Ron Marks, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Christopher Preble, Michael F. Scheuer, Michael Brenner, Wayne White, Michael Brown, Eric Farnsworth, James Jay Carafano
Al Qaeda has now made it official: It says the suicide bomber who killed seven CIA employees in Afghanistan on Dec. 30 acted in retaliation for the killings of Qaeda leaders in Pakistan by U.S. Predator drones, and in particular for the drone-inflicted death of Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. President Obama has stepped up the use of these loitering, pilotless surveillance and bomber aircraft in the past year, seemingly to great effect. National Journal this week publishes two feature stories ("'Wanted: Dead'") and ("Are Drone Strikes Murder?") examining, respectively, the military aspects of the drones and the legal questions surrounding their use. Many international law experts say the drone strikes amount to illegal extrajudicial killings.
But what do you, the experts, think about these strikes?
Predators are one of our primary counter-terrorism tools -- CIA Director Leon Panetta said last May, "Very frankly, it's the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the Al Qaeda leadership." Should we continue to use them not only in Pakistan, but in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere as often as we deem fit? Is the public backlash against these remote killers in these countries worth considering, or just a necessary side effect of a valuable tool? Does the Israeli experience with drones to counteract violent opposition on its borders offer any useful lessons? And, are Predator strikes really disrupting Al Qaeda that much when, in the space of four months, the group has been able to launch three significant attacks -- the attempted Christmas bomber, the CIA suicide bomber, and the attempted assassination last August of the Saudi counter-terrorism chief, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Paul Sullivan, Michael F. Scheuer, Ron Marks, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Brenner, Wayne White, Steven Metz, Daniel Gouré
Even before the revelation that would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab picked up training and materials from Al Qaeda in Yemen, the United States had been helping the Yemeni government track and kill terrorists, as well as fighters in its civil wars. Indeed, America has been engaged there for years -- lending assistance with drone aircraft, money and intelligence sharing.
Now that the Obama administration plans to double its monetary assistance to Yemen, the question arises: Will the U.S. military "go to war" there, too? Perhaps not with the full force of an invasion -- but is President Obama likely to significantly escalate U.S. operations in this unstable country on the Arabian peninsula, perhaps even sending troops or advisers to Yemen to deal with Al Qaeda, which, clearly, previous efforts have been unable to squash? Or does our low-key intervention so far offer a new, more politically palatable model for counterterrorism?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Dov S. Zakheim, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Larry Korb, Christopher Preble, Paul Sullivan, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Steven Metz, Joseph J. Collins, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Ron Marks, Steven Metz
'Tis the season for... New Year's predictions! 2010 will be the year of/when _____. You fill in the blank, and if you want to attach a betting-like odds figure, that's OK, too. The odds, say, that Israel will launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? That Pakistan totally implodes? That Gitmo really does get shut down? That North Korea gives up its nukes, that Mexico wins its war with the drug cartels? Or weigh in on this: Will Obama's global approval rating -- repeat, global -- be higher or lower at the end of 2010 than it is now?
Feel free to wander all over the geopolitical map and up and down the precincts of Washington, D.C. Is there some national-security policymaker likely to lose his or her job? Someone new likely to be added to Team Obama? A new book that's likely to be hot, hot, hot? A new paradigm that everyone will be talking about? An old paradigm that will bite the dust?
Try thinking about this one with a glass of Veuve Clicquot, or any other favorite beverage, by the fireside. And bottoms up!
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
20 responses: Eric Farnsworth, Paul Starobin, Winslow T. Wheeler, Joseph J. Collins, Paul Starobin, Michael Brenner, Paul Starobin, Daniel Serwer, Paul Starobin, Michael F. Scheuer, David Krieger, Michael Vlahos, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Paul Sullivan, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Steven Metz, Christian Caryl, Dov S. Zakheim, Christopher Preble
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama gave expansive remarks on the nature of war and peace, and how he sees America's role as a leader among nations. He articulated a set of core principles about when the United States may use force, and to what ends, as well as how the nation will project its power in the world.
Continued American military superiority
"The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.... So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."
A rejection of national exceptionalism, not just America's
"Even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war."
"America--in fact, no nation--can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves."
"America cannot act alone to secure the peace."
A defense of preemptive war and human rights
"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans.... Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later."
"Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting."
Peace "must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want."
After hearing the president's Nobel speech, do you think we have the first signs of an "Obama doctrine," a view of foreign policy, as well as global military affairs, that will guide his decisions? If so, what do you think that doctrine is? And is it a realistic one for the world that the United States confronts? Or has Obama articulated a doctrine that is fundamentally not so different from many past American presidents?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, James R. Locher III, David Krieger, Patrick B. Pexton, Paul Sullivan, Chris Seiple, Michael F. Scheuer, Joseph J. Collins, Larry Korb, Dov S. Zakheim, Ron Marks, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Michael Brenner, Steven Metz
One of the legs of President Obama's triad for Afghanistan is a strengthened long-term alliance with Pakistan. Or, in Obama's words at West Point last week: "Going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent." Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged on Capitol Hill last week that given the on-again, off-again relationship Washington has had with Islamabad over the decades, "We have a lot of work to do in trying to convince them... that we are actually interested in a long-term partnership with them." On the same day in London, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that he, too, wanted "a long-term strategic alliance that goes beyond terrorism."
But few details have come out about how exactly this will be undertaken. Pakistan's cooperation is essential to Obama's efforts to "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan" -- yet the U.S. is not popular in Pakistan, and Pakistanis in and out of government are suspicious of Washington's growing closeness with India. The stakes for the United States in Pakistan are probably higher than in Afghanistan. But how do we manage this relationship with Islamabad? What should be our goals in Pakistan, and how do we accomplish them? What are the specific actions you would urge Obama to undertake to make this relationship work?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Steven Metz, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Michael F. Scheuer, Chris Seiple, Michael Vlahos, Michael F. Scheuer, Paul Sullivan, Michael Brenner, Steven Metz, Joseph J. Collins, Evelyn N. Farkas, Col. W. Patrick Lang
President Obama has spoken and has a new plan for Afghanistan. In its essence, it calls for 30,000 more U.S. troops (possibly a few thousand more from NATO allies), a strengthened civilian effort to bolster the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai, and a long-term partnership with Pakistan that, Obama promised, would endure long after the guns fall silent in Afghanistan. He said he would introduce the new troops as quickly as possible and yet begin a withdrawal of some troops 18 months after they arrive as Afghan security forces begin to take on more responsibility, although he carefully caveated that withdrawal promise with Bush-like phraseology that the schedule could be altered by "conditions on the ground."
Will this plan work? Is it too much, or not enough? What do you think of the president's choices, and his speech?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Richard Hart Sinnreich, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Wayne White, Ron Marks, Michael F. Scheuer, Chris Seiple, Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Daniel Serwer, Joseph J. Collins, Daniel Gouré, Steven Metz
